DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecology of the Creosotebush T-Arhea Tridentata (Dc.) Cov

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ECOLOGY OF THE CREOSOTEBUSH LARREA TRIDENTATA (DC.) COV. Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic); maps Authors Dalton, Patrick Daly, 1922- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 24/09/2021 16:14:07 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290170 ECOLOGY OF THE CREOSOTEBUSH T-ARHEA TRIDENTATA (DC.) COV. by Patrick D.^l)alton, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of IK3CT0R OF PHILOSOPHY "In the Graduate College UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 19 6 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Patrick D. Dalton, Jr. entitled ECOLOGY OF THE CREOSOTEBUSH LARREA TRIDENTATA (DC.) COV. be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of , DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY .vK'v ^wvV i ^ , f $6 / Dissertation DirectoV \ Date After inspection of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* j$.£#y7A~j g/i *This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of thijs dissertation at the final oral examination* The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination. STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in The University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable with­ out special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in their judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals have been instrumental in assisting the author in bringing to a conclusion this ecological investigation with its various associated disciplines. It is impossible to list all who have been involved with this work. However, the following deserve special thanks and credit. Dr. R. R. Humphrey, Professor of Range Management in the Department of Watershed Management, guided the author through his academic program, assisted in choosing the doctoral research program and served as dissertation director. Dr. Humphrey provided strong support and guidance throughout the program and gave freely of his time and ability. The following also served on the author's guidance committee, gave freely of their time and critically read this dissertation: Dr. R. M. Turner, Department of Botany, and Dr. T. C. Tucker. Department of Agricultural Chmis^r^t^m^s/ils. Appreciatio 5 extended to Dr. A. L. McComb, head of the Department of Water d Management, and members of the staff and faculty who assisted in the investigation at various times and for use of departmental space and facilities. Sincere appreciation is also given to Dr. W. S. Phillips, head of the Department of Botany, and to members of his staff and faculty who assisted. Special thanks iii is expressed to Dr. Phillips for use of both equipment and space for microtechnique and photographic work performed by the author. The author is indebted to the regional W-25 committee of the Western Agricultural Experiment Stations for providing financial assistance from July 1, 1958 to December 31, 1959 and again from January 1, 1961 to June 30, 1961 through Regional Research Project 365; and the National Science Foundation for support from January 1, 1960 to December 31, 1960. Most important, the author is grateful to his wife Lela who, among other things, typed this paper and without whose moral support this work would not have been completed. Finally, the many others, unnamed, who are deserving o£ the author's gratitude. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables vii List of Figures xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 1 Taxonomy "T . 2 Description of the Species 4 Values and Uses of Larrea tridentata 6 II DISTRIBUTION 11 Method 11 Factors Affecting Distribution 14 Edaphic Factors . 14 Climatic Factors 15 Precipitation 16 Temperature 17 Distribution of the Genus 18 Distribution of the Genus in the North American Deserts . 20 The Mohave Desert 21 The Sonoran Desert 21 The Chihuahua Desert 22 Distribution of Larrea in Arizona 22 Extension of Larrea tridentata Distribution. 24 v f TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) CHAPTER Page III THE LARREA COMMUNITY 26 Nature of the Data and Method of Analysis... 26 Analysis Results 27 Description of Communities 30 y Larrea Dominant 30 Larrea-Deaert Scrub 30 Larrea-Franseria 32 Larrea-Opuntia 33 Larrea-Fouquieria 34 Larrea-Grass 34 Larrea-Subordinate 37 IV SEED GERMINATION 38 Soil Texture and Moisture 39 Temperature and Solution 42 Pre-Cooling 45 Light 46 ' pH 51 Carbon Dioxide 53 Temperature and Longevity . '. 56 V PHENOLOGY OF LARREA TRIDENTATA 60 Method 60 Response to Moisture 61 Response to Temperature 65 VI LEAF ANATOMY OF LARREA TRIDENTATA 67 Preparation of Material 67 Discussion 69 VII LEAF MOISTURE 79 Method 82 Discussion 83 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) CHAPTER Page VIII LARREA GROWTH INHIBITERS 89 Method 92 Results 96 Discussion 102 IX EFFECTS OF FIRE 105 Method 106 Results and Discussion 106 X SUMMARY 114 REFERENCES CITED 118 APPENDIX 128 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Composition of 787 creosotebush communities from the Papago Indian Reservation, Pima County, Arizona .... 28 2. Amount of moisture as affecting germination of Larrea tridentata seed • 40 3. Effects of temperature and solution on germination of Larrea tridentata seed 44 4. Germination of Larrea tridentata seeds following a seven day cooling period of 0° C. compared to seed which received no pre-germination treatment 47 5. Effect of light on germination of Larrea tridentata seed 50 6. Effect of pH on germination of Larrea tridentata ... 52 7. Effect of carbon dioxide on germination of " Larrea tridentata 55 8. Effects of high temperatures and longevity on the germination of Larrea tridentata seed 57 9. Larrea tridentata growth response to watering 63 10. Means of air-dry weights of seedlings of Larrea and four grass species 97 11. Means of whole plant lengths of seedlings of Larrea and four grass species 98 12. Means of stem lengths of seedlings of Larrea and four grass species 99 13. Means of root lengths of seedlings of Larrea and four grass species 100 14. Abundance of Prosopis iuliflora as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. , 129 viii LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Table Page 15. Abundance of Franseria deltoIdea as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 130 16. Abundance of Opuntia spp. as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert 131 17. Abundance of Cercidium microphyllum as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 132 18. Abundance of Lycium spp. as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert 133 19. Abundance of Haplopappus teunisectus as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 134 20. Abundance of Atriplex polycarpa as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 135 21. Abundance of Franseria dumosa as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 136 22. Abundance of Krameria parvifolia as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 137 23. Abundance of Acacia constrieta as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 138 24. Abundance of Fouquieria splendens as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 139 25. Abundance of Olneya tesota.as related to abundance Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert 140 26. Abundance of Encelia farinosa as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 141 27. Abundance of Gutierrezia lucida as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert.. 142 28. Abundance of Psilostrophe cooperi as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 143 29. Abundance of Janusia gracilis as related to the abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert. 144 ix LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Table Page 30. Abundance of Acacia greggii as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert 145 31. Abundance of Calliandra eriophvlla as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 146 32. Abundance of Crassina purnila as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert ...... 147 33. Abundance of Jatropha cardiophylla as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 148 34. Abundance of Siamondsia chinensis as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 149 35. Abundance of Cercidium floridum as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 150 36. Abundance of Eriogonum fasciculatum as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 151 37. Abundance of Huhlenbergia porteri as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 152 38. Abundance of Tridens pulchellus as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 153 39. Abundance of Bouteloua rothrockii as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert . 154 40. Abundance of Tridens muticus as related to abundance of Larrea tridentata in the Sonoran Desert' 155 41.
Recommended publications
  • Gymnosperms the MESOZOIC: ERA of GYMNOSPERM DOMINANCE

    Gymnosperms the MESOZOIC: ERA of GYMNOSPERM DOMINANCE

    Chapter 24 Gymnosperms THE MESOZOIC: ERA OF GYMNOSPERM DOMINANCE THE VASCULAR SYSTEM OF GYMNOSPERMS CYCADS GINKGO CONIFERS Pinaceae Include the Pines, Firs, and Spruces Cupressaceae Include the Junipers, Cypresses, and Redwoods Taxaceae Include the Yews, but Plum Yews Belong to Cephalotaxaceae Podocarpaceae and Araucariaceae Are Largely Southern Hemisphere Conifers THE LIFE CYCLE OF PINUS, A REPRESENTATIVE GYMNOSPERM Pollen and Ovules Are Produced in Different Kinds of Structures Pollination Replaces the Need for Free Water Fertilization Leads to Seed Formation GNETOPHYTES GYMNOSPERMS: SEEDS, POLLEN, AND WOOD THE ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF GYMNOSPERMS The Origin of Seeds, Pollen, and Wood Seeds and Pollen Are Key Reproductive SUMMARY Innovations for Life on Land Seed Plants Have Distinctive Vegetative PLANTS, PEOPLE, AND THE Features ENVIRONMENT: The California Coast Relationships among Gymnosperms Redwood Forest 1 KEY CONCEPTS 1. The evolution of seeds, pollen, and wood freed plants from the need for water during reproduction, allowed for more effective dispersal of sperm, increased parental investment in the next generation and allowed for greater size and strength. 2. Seed plants originated in the Devonian period from a group called the progymnosperms, which possessed wood and heterospory, but reproduced by releasing spores. Currently, five lineages of seed plants survive--the flowering plants plus four groups of gymnosperms: cycads, Ginkgo, conifers, and gnetophytes. Conifers are the best known and most economically important group, including pines, firs, spruces, hemlocks, redwoods, cedars, cypress, yews, and several Southern Hemisphere genera. 3. The pine life cycle is heterosporous. Pollen strobili are small and seasonal. Each sporophyll has two microsporangia, in which microspores are formed and divide into immature male gametophytes while still retained in the microsporangia.
  • Seed Collection Policy and Pricing

    Seed Collection Policy and Pricing

    NATIVE PLANT SEED COLLECTION PRICING TABLE Note: Prices listed in Vendor prices for Fall/Winter 2012-2013 based on 10% of retail Price Per Pound BLM paid in the recent National seed buys * Common Name TSIS Scientific Name Ecoregion/ Location Fall/Winter ($) * BLM Charge rate ($) SHRUBS Buy 2/Ave Buy 3/Ave Big sagebrush, basin Artemisia tridentata tridentata $ 1.05 $ 2.12 0.159 Big sagebrush, mountain Artemisia tridentata vaseyana $ 1.45 $ 2.95 0.220 Big sagebrush, Wyoming Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis $ 1.06 $ 2.55 0.181 Bitterbrush, antelope Purshia tridentata $ 1.65 $ 1.48 0.157 Bitterbrush, desert Purshia glandulosa $ 1.95 $ 1.70 0.183 Blackbrush Coleogyne ramossisima $ 2.50 0.250 Brittlebush, Virgin River Encelia virginensis $ 0.90 0.090 Bursage, white Ambrosia dumosa $ 2.90 0.290 Cheesebush Hymenoclea salsola $ 2.50 0.250 Cliffrose Cowania stansburiana $ 2.50 0.250 Creosote bush Larrea tridentata $ 3.00 0.300 Ephedra, green Ephedra viridus $ 2.00 0.200 Ephedra, Nevada Ephedra nevadensis $ 2.00 0.200 Mountain mahogany, birchleaf Cercocarpus betulifolia $ 3.00 0.300 Mountain mahogany, curlleaf Cercocarpus ledifolius $ 2.80 $ 2.50 0.265 Mountain mahogany, true Cercocarpus montanus $ 3.00 $ 3.00 0.300 Quailbush Atiplex lentiformis $ 1.25 0.125 Rabbitbrush, rubber Ericameria nauseosa $ 1.15 $ 0.95 0.105 Rabbitbrush, whitestem Ericameria nauseosa ssp. hololeuca $ 1.10 0.110 Sagebrush, black Artemisia nova $ 1.75 $ 1.95 0.185 Sagebrush, low Artemisia arbuscula $ 1.80 $ 1.75 0.178 Saltbush, cattle Atriplex polycarpa $ 1.00 0.100 Saltbush, fourwing Atriplex canescens $ 0.69 $ 0.60 0.065 Shadescale Atriplex confertifolia $ 0.45 $ 0.50 0.048 Winterfat Kraschenninikovia lanata $ 1.20 $ 1.00 0.110 Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa $ 3.50 0.350 Attachment 4-1 Common Name TSIS Scientific Name Ecoregion/ Location Fall/Winter ($) * BLM Charge rate ($) FORBS Aster/Fleabane Aster or Erigeron sp.
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
  • A Phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae Including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae)

    A Phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae Including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae)

    Peterson, P.M., K. Romaschenko, and Y. Herrera Arrieta. 2020. A phylogeny of the Hubbardochloinae including Tetrachaete (Poaceae: Chloridoideae: Cynodonteae). Phytoneuron 2020-81: 1–13. Published 18 November 2020. ISSN 2153 733 A PHYLOGENY OF THE HUBBARDOCHLOINAE INCLUDING TETRACHAETE (CYNODONTEAE: CHLORIDOIDEAE: POACEAE) PAUL M. PETERSON AND KONSTANTIN ROMASCHENKO Department of Botany National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 [email protected]; [email protected] YOLANDA HERRERA ARRIETA Instituto Politécnico Nacional CIIDIR Unidad Durango-COFAA Durango, C.P. 34220, México [email protected] ABSTRACT The phylogeny of subtribe Hubbardochloinae is revisited, here with the inclusion of the monotypic genus Tetrachaete, based on a molecular DNA analysis using ndhA intron, rpl32-trnL, rps16 intron, rps16- trnK, and ITS markers. Tetrachaete elionuroides is aligned within the Hubbardochloinae and is sister to Dignathia. The biogeography of the Hubbardochloinae is discussed, its origin likely in Africa or temperate Asia. In a previous molecular DNA phylogeny (Peterson et al. 2016), the subtribe Hubbardochloinae Auquier [Bewsia Gooss., Dignathia Stapf, Gymnopogon P. Beauv., Hubbardochloa Auquier, Leptocarydion Hochst. ex Stapf, Leptothrium Kunth, and Lophacme Stapf] was found in a clade with moderate support (BS = 75, PP = 1.00) sister to the Farragininae P.M. Peterson et al. In the present study, Tetrachaete elionuroides Chiov. is included in a phylogenetic analysis (using ndhA intron, rpl32- trnL, rps16 intron, rps16-trnK, and ITS DNA markers) in order to test its relationships within the Cynodonteae with heavy sampling of species in the supersubtribe Gouiniodinae P.M. Peterson & Romasch. Chiovenda (1903) described Tetrachaete Chiov. with a with single species, T.
  • Simulating the Productivity of Desert Woody Shrubs in Southwestern Texas

    Simulating the Productivity of Desert Woody Shrubs in Southwestern Texas

    DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.73703 ProvisionalChapter chapter 2 Simulating the Productivity of Desert Woody Shrubs in Southwestern Texas SuminSumin Kim, Kim, JaehakJaehak Jeong Jeong and James R. KiniryR. Kiniry Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73703 Abstract In the southwestern U.S., many rangelands have converted from native grasslands to woody shrublands dominated by creosotebush (Larrea tridentate) and honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), threatening ecosystem health. Both creosotebush and mesquite have well-developed long root systems that allow them to outcompete neighboring plants. Thus, control of these two invasive shrubs is essential for revegetation in arid rangelands. Simulation models are valuable tools for describing invasive shrub growth and interaction between shrubs and other perennial grasses and for evaluating quantitative changes in ecosystem properties linked to shrub invasion and shrub control. In this study, a hybrid and multiscale modeling approach with two process-based models, ALMANAC and APEX was developed. Through ALMANAC application, plant parameters and growth cycles of creosotebush and mesquite were characterized based on field data. The devel- oped shrub growth curves and parameters were subsequently used in APEX to explore productivity and range condition at a larger field scale. APEX was used to quantitatively evaluate the effect of shrub reductions on vegetation and water and soil qualities in vari- ous topological conditions. The results of this study showed that this multi modeling approach is capable of accurately predicting the impacts of shrubs on soil water resources. Keywords: arid rangeland, creosotebush, mesquite, ALMANAC, APEX 1. Introduction Rangelands cover 31% of the total land base of the U.S.
  • Joshua Tree Species Status Assessment

    Joshua Tree Species Status Assessment

    U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Joshua Tree Species Status Assessment Felicia Sirchia, Scott Hoffmann, and Jennifer Wilkening 10/23/2018 Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would like to thank Tony Mckinney, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO) GIS Manager. Tony acquired and summarized data and generated maps for the Species Status Assessment (SSA) – information critical to development of the SSA. Thanks to our Core Team members Jennifer ‘Jena’ Lewinshon, Utah Fish and Wildlife Office, and Brian Wooldridge, Arizona Fish and Wildlife Office. Both these folks were involved early in the SSA development process and provided background on the SSA framework and constructive, helpful feedback on early drafts. Thanks to Bradd Bridges, CFWO Listing and Recovery Chief, and Jenness McBride, Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Division Chief, who provided thorough, helpful comments on early drafts. Thanks to the rest of the Core Team: Arnold Roessler, Region 8, Regional listing Lead; Nancy Ferguson, CFWO; Justin Shoemaker, Region 6; Cheryll Dobson, Region 8 Solicitor; and Jane Hendron, CFWO Public Affairs. All these folks provided constructive, thoughtful comments on drafts of the SSA. Last but not least, we want to thank Wayne Nuckols, CFWO librarian, who provided invaluable research and reference support. Recommended Citation: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Joshua Tree Status Assessment. Dated October 23, 2018. 113 pp. + Appendices A–C. i Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................
  • CDFG Natural Communities List

    CDFG Natural Communities List

    Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database September 2003 Edition Introduction: This document supersedes all other lists of terrestrial natural communities developed by the Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). It is based on the classification put forth in “A Manual of California Vegetation” (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995 and upcoming new edition). However, it is structured to be compatible with previous CNDDB lists (e.g., Holland 1986). For those familiar with the Holland numerical coding system you will see a general similarity in the upper levels of the hierarchy. You will also see a greater detail at the lower levels of the hierarchy. The numbering system has been modified to incorporate this richer detail. Decimal points have been added to separate major groupings and two additional digits have been added to encompass the finest hierarchal detail. One of the objectives of the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) was to apply a uniform hierarchical structure to the State’s vegetation types. Quantifiable classification rules were established to define the major floristic groups, called alliances and associations in the National Vegetation Classification (Grossman et al. 1998). In this document, the alliance level is denoted in the center triplet of the coding system and the associations in the right hand pair of numbers to the left of the final decimal. The numbers of the alliance in the center triplet attempt to denote relationships in floristic similarity. For example, the Chamise-Eastwood Manzanita alliance (37.106.00) is more closely related to the Chamise- Cupleaf Ceanothus alliance (37.105.00) than it is to the Chaparral Whitethorn alliance (37.205.00).
  • LIST of PLANTS ACCEPTABLE in UTILITY EASEMENT Guideline for Shallow Rooting Plants* *Some Neighborhoods May Have More Stringent Or Restricted Plant List

    LIST of PLANTS ACCEPTABLE in UTILITY EASEMENT Guideline for Shallow Rooting Plants* *Some Neighborhoods May Have More Stringent Or Restricted Plant List

    LIST OF PLANTS ACCEPTABLE IN UTILITY EASEMENT Guideline for Shallow Rooting Plants* *Some Neighborhoods may have more stringent or restricted plant list. In those cases use plant that are on both this plant list and that required by the neighborhood. Botanical Name Common Name GROUNDCOVERS Acacia redolens Desert carpet trailing acacia 2’ by 15’ Aloe barbadensis Medicinal aloe 2” by 2” Aloe saponaria Tiger aloe 1” by 1” Ambrosia deltoidea Triangle leaf bur-sage 2” by 2 Ambrosia dumosa White bur-sage 2’ by 3’ Artemisia ludoviciana White sage 2’ by 4’ Asparagus densiflorus ‘Sprengeri” Sprenger asparagus 2’ by 4’ Baccharis spp. “Twin Peaks” Twin peaks coyote brush 2’ by 5’ Bulbine frutescens Bulbine 1’ by 2’ Convolvulus mauritanicus Ground morning glory 1’ by 2’ Dalea Capitata “Sierra Gold” Yellow flowered trailing dalea 8, by 3’ Dalea greggii Trailing indigo bush 2’ by 4’ Ericameria laricifolia Turpentine bush 2’ by 3’ Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat 2’ by 2’ Eriogonum wrightii Buckwheat 2’ by 3’ Gazania rigens “Sun Gold” Gold gazania 1’ by 3’ Lantana spp. “New Gold” Yellow lantana “New Gold” 1’ by 3’ Oenothera berlandieri Mexican evening primrose 1’ by 4’ Oenothera caespitosa Tufted evening primrose 1’ by 2’ Oenothera stubbei Saltillo Primrose 1’ by 4’ Rosemarinus officinalis “Prostratus” Trailing rosemary 2’ by 6’ Salvia chamaedryoides Blue sage 2’ by 2’ Salvia coccinea Sage 2’ by 3’ Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender cotton 2’ by 2’ Santolina virens Green santolina 2’ by 18” Turf (out of R.O.W. areas and less then 50% of total landscape area) Teucrium chamaedrys ‘Prostrata” Germander 1’ by 2’ Verbena peruviana Peruvian verbena 8” by 3’ Verbena rigida Sandpaper verbena 2’ by 3’ Zephyranthes candida Rain lily 1’ by 1’ Zinnia grandiflora Rocky mountain zinnia 6” by 1’ SHRUBS Abutilon palmeri Superstition mallow Aloysia spp.
  • Facilitation of Yucca Brevifolia Recruitment by Mojave Desert Shrubs

    Facilitation of Yucca Brevifolia Recruitment by Mojave Desert Shrubs

    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1998 Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs Steve B Brittingham University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Brittingham, Steve B, "Facilitation of Yucca brevifolia recruitment by Mojave Desert shrubs" (1998). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 950. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/ms22-zauw This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter free, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
  • Issue 5 Spring 2015

    Issue 5 Spring 2015

    Utah Shrubland Management Issue 5, Spring 2015 Page 1 The Spring 2015 Project Updates and Field Tour Information Newsletter highlights The field crew members on the Shrub Management Project are now preparing for our study site in Park their third summer of data collection after management actions were initiated in spring of 2013. It’s an exciting year to see the effects of herbicide, mowing,Page and 1 seed- Valley, UT. The ranch ing treatments on a diverse group of shrub, grass, and forb species. With two study where we work is sites per ranch, we can begin to compare how response to management varies be- tween closely related ecological sites. owned and operated The big news this season is that over the next two months, we’re hosting tours of our by Lance West- field sites to share our initial project results. All who are interested in rangelands— moreland and family; management practitioners, property owners, students, neighbors—are invited to come learn about the Utah shrub management project. Ecologists from USDA-ARS greasewood is the and Utah State University will be leading discussions about brush management meth- targeted shrub. ods and ecological sites at our four study locations (details below). The tours will also include presentations by state and county conser- vation agencies (DWR, NRCS, Utah State Extension) on topics such as exotic species control, juniper encroachment, seeding, and wildfire management. Lunches will be provided for tour attendees. This will be a great opportunity to learn about current approaches in range management, come join us! Photo: Beth Burritt CONTENTS 2015 Summer Field Tour Schedule Project Birdseye & Cedar Fort (Central UT) - See enclosed flyer May 20 1 Updates Targeted Shrubs: Rubber Rabbitbrush & Snakeweed Park Valley ranch: Partners: NRCS, DWR, UACD Zone 3 Overview of 2 Time: 9am — 4pm ecological sites Park Valley (North-Western UT) - See enclosed flyer June 2 Greasewood: Targeted Shrub: Black Greasewood Natural history 5 Partners: West Box Elder Coord.
  • Phreatophytes

    Phreatophytes

    Phreatophytes By T. W. ROBINSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1423 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON: 1958 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. Price 40 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................ 2 Acknowledgments ......................................... 2 Use of ground water by phreatophytes ..................... 3 Evidence ............................................... 3 Effect .................................................. 3 Future considerations ..................................... 7 Definitions ................................................. 9 The hydrologic cycle ........................................ 10 Plants classified as phreatophytes ............................ 12 Scientific and common names .............................. 13 Factors affecting occurrence of phreatophytes ................ 13 Climate .................................................. 14 Depth to water ........................................... 14 Quality of ground water .................................. 15 Factors affecting the use of ground water by phreatophytes...... 16 Climatic conditions ....................................... 17 Depth to water ........................................... 22 Density of growth .......................................
  • Joshua Tree 3 11 05

    Joshua Tree 3 11 05

    Vegetation Classification of Joshua Tree National Park, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California A report submitted to National Park Service Tasha LaDaux, Chief of Resources Joshua Tree National Park 74485 National Park Drive Twentynine Palms, California 92277-3597 by California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch Sacramento, California by Todd Keeler-Wolf Sau San Diana Hickson March 2005 Section Page Table of Contents Section Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 Background and Standards............................................................................................ 1 Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 3 Timeline......................................................................................................................... 3 METHODS..................................................................................................................... 4 Vegetation Sampling and Classification....................................................................... 4 Development of the Preliminary Classification ................................................... 4 Integration of Existing Data Sets.......................................................................... 4 Summary .............................................................................................................. 7 Sample Allocation